By Ricardo Barber
A group of Theologians were discussing predestination and free will. When the argument became heated, the dissidents split into two groups. One man, unable to make up his mind which group to join, slipped into the predestination crowd. Challenged as to why he was there, he said, “I came of my own free will.” The group reacted, “Free will? You can’t join us!” And he retreated to the opposing group and met the same challenge. “What are you doing here?’ I was sent here.” “Get out!” they stormed. “You can’t join us unless you come of your own free will.”
- Leslie Flynn, Great Church Fights
As I take a walk in the park of philosophy and theology, I realize one thing: the walk never ends. Please can someone help me, I just wanted to enjoy the scenery and feed the birds. But now I find myself entrenched in a whirlwind conversation with a man while sitting on a bench. I didn’t ask for this or did I?
The worldview topics of metaphysics and anthropology in relation to determinism and indeterminism (predestination and free will) are an ongoing discussion in Christian Theology. One of the hindrances of progress in this area of discussion is people’s failure to define key terms. Be that as it may, I must define determinism and indeterminism. Ronald Nash defines determinism as the belief that everything that occurs in the universe is caused by prior states of affairs.1 Indeterminism is the belief that human choices can sometimes be independent of prior causes.2 Other terms that are important to this subject matter are compatibilism and incompatibilism. A compatibilist holds to the theory that freedom and determinism can somehow be reconciled, while an imcompatibilist believes they cannot.3 Each of these terms is important to the doctrine of salvation and man’s responsibility. Calvinist and Arminians differ especially in determinism-indeterminism. Hyper-Calvinists are considered hard determinist because they believe God causes everything in salvation. Hard determinism can and has led to fatalism because every event is caused by God. So they must answer the questions: Did God create evil and is this an all-loving God? There are implications of extreme Arminianism as well, some being the problems of the uninfluenced will. If actions are uncaused, conduct is unexplainable. Being able to observe these concepts from a philosophical standpoint helps one to avoid the extremes in Soteriology. It can really help us maintain a balanced view of God’s sovereignty and man’s will. Compatibilism could be that balance, it will take more time (which means I’m stuck in this park) biblical, and philosophical study, to determine the answer, if one is possible. I guess this is a good place to be. Come join me!
1 Ronald H. Nash, Life’s Ultimate Questions: An Introduction to Philosophy (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999), 326.
2 Ibid.
3 Ibid, 327.
Very useful suggestion. We often overlook the most important step when doing theology & philosophy: defining terms. I think that's why philosophy sheds such important light on doctrine- so many times we talk past each other.
ReplyDeleteNash in that book presented a pretty convincing, though brief, case for determinism at least in its most mild form. I've struggled reconciling unconditional election with a loving God, but have yet to thoroughly work through approaching election from a metaphysical perspective. Thank you for the great reminder!